Breitbart
- Thread starter Woebot
- Start date
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I'm aware that high-profile feminists quite often receive nasty threats, although I do have to wonder how many of them come from trans-women. I'd have thought the vast majority of the time it's just unpleasant men being unpleasant men.
And without wishing to downplay the seriousness of death threats, transgender people more frequently have to worry about actual violence, given that they tend to get beaten and murdered at a far higher rate than non-trans people of whatever sex or sexuality.
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
Really this idea that these nasty radical feminists go out of their to insult and oppress trans people is complete bollocks. They are against patriarchy, misogyny and socially constructed gender norms that oppress women. No wonder people feel uncomfortable with the gender norms they are socialized into. Feminists are not the problem here and neither are trans people...unless they start with the misogyny themselves.
And yes, the attacks by trans gender people are significant. Not only the threats on twitter etc, but also more importantly the no-platforming, bullying and silencing tactics that are really starting to get out of hand.
The fact is you can identify yourself as whatever you like, but you can't just 'choose' to be part of a social class. It is circumstances that put you there not choice. Now can you see why women might be insulted by this? Why these ideas are actually quite dangerous?
And yes, the attacks by trans gender people are significant. Not only the threats on twitter etc, but also more importantly the no-platforming, bullying and silencing tactics that are really starting to get out of hand.
The fact is you can identify yourself as whatever you like, but you can't just 'choose' to be part of a social class. It is circumstances that put you there not choice. Now can you see why women might be insulted by this? Why these ideas are actually quite dangerous?
subvert47
I don't fight, I run away
You've posted a lot about this, Benny. Rather than deal with your posts one by one, I'll collate them all here...
Trans "theory" isn't really a thing. Trans is generally about people's real lives.
And feminism as such doesn't have a problem with trans people – some feminists have a problem, some radical feminists – and not all radfems, some radfems.
Basically they take a monolithic view of gender: that gender is a social construct (of the patriarchy) and is the primary device through which women are oppressed – and that gender is nothing but that.
Trans feminists mostly agree with radical feminists about the oppressive nature of gender, but also use the word "gender" in another way, relating to "gender identity", which refers to a sense of self as being a particular "gender" (e.g. male, female, non-binary) contrary to that assigned at birth. This notion of "gender identity" is pretty much accepted scientifically now – and more and more politically and culturally – even though no one really knows what causes it.
I've actually used the word "gender" in three ways in that paragraph, which is somewhat problematic. But they only really conflict if you insist that words can only have one meaning.
That's because what they say doesn't affect you personally, so it all seems "reasonable" and a valid subject for "debate". Analogies are quite easy to find there.
Because of their monolithic view of gender, these particular radfems regard trans people as gender collaborators, defenders, infiltrators, whatever - certainly the "enemy of women". Whether you want to call that "hate" is up to you, but their words and actions don't tend to differ much from any other kind of bigot.
No, it really isn't. Here's a riposte to that: https://feministchallengingtranspho...05/18/sarah-ditum-not-gender-critical-enough/
These radical feminists actually do go out of their way to do that.
No-platforming is a controversial tactic, but in this context it's basically just a way of saying "fuck off out of here with that shit". The people who tend to be no-platformed usually have many other platforms they can use anyway. Indeed, the only reason someone like you even knows about it is because of their massive platforms.
Your understanding of "gender identity" is pretty clueless. It's not about "choosing" to be part of a social class. Also, these rad fems don't speak for "women". They speak for themselves.
As Catherine McKinnon (another radical feminist) said: "Many transwomen just go around being women, who knew, and suddenly, we are supposed to care that they are using the women’s bathroom. There they are in the next stall with the door shut, and we’re supposed to feel threatened. I don’t. I don’t care. By now, I aggressively don’t care."
When you spend your time abusing a particular community, sometimes you get angry replies. These are then used as "evidence" of their malfeasance. Most trans activists know better than to play these games. Obviously some people will get angry anyway, but most of such abuse of feminists actually comes from the usual sources: trolling men – which is where this thread started.
Trans "theory" isn't really a thing. Trans is generally about people's real lives.
And feminism as such doesn't have a problem with trans people – some feminists have a problem, some radical feminists – and not all radfems, some radfems.
Basically they take a monolithic view of gender: that gender is a social construct (of the patriarchy) and is the primary device through which women are oppressed – and that gender is nothing but that.
Trans feminists mostly agree with radical feminists about the oppressive nature of gender, but also use the word "gender" in another way, relating to "gender identity", which refers to a sense of self as being a particular "gender" (e.g. male, female, non-binary) contrary to that assigned at birth. This notion of "gender identity" is pretty much accepted scientifically now – and more and more politically and culturally – even though no one really knows what causes it.
I've actually used the word "gender" in three ways in that paragraph, which is somewhat problematic. But they only really conflict if you insist that words can only have one meaning.
That's because what they say doesn't affect you personally, so it all seems "reasonable" and a valid subject for "debate". Analogies are quite easy to find there.
Because of their monolithic view of gender, these particular radfems regard trans people as gender collaborators, defenders, infiltrators, whatever - certainly the "enemy of women". Whether you want to call that "hate" is up to you, but their words and actions don't tend to differ much from any other kind of bigot.
No, it really isn't. Here's a riposte to that: https://feministchallengingtranspho...05/18/sarah-ditum-not-gender-critical-enough/
These radical feminists actually do go out of their way to do that.
No-platforming is a controversial tactic, but in this context it's basically just a way of saying "fuck off out of here with that shit". The people who tend to be no-platformed usually have many other platforms they can use anyway. Indeed, the only reason someone like you even knows about it is because of their massive platforms.
Your understanding of "gender identity" is pretty clueless. It's not about "choosing" to be part of a social class. Also, these rad fems don't speak for "women". They speak for themselves.
As Catherine McKinnon (another radical feminist) said: "Many transwomen just go around being women, who knew, and suddenly, we are supposed to care that they are using the women’s bathroom. There they are in the next stall with the door shut, and we’re supposed to feel threatened. I don’t. I don’t care. By now, I aggressively don’t care."
When you spend your time abusing a particular community, sometimes you get angry replies. These are then used as "evidence" of their malfeasance. Most trans activists know better than to play these games. Obviously some people will get angry anyway, but most of such abuse of feminists actually comes from the usual sources: trolling men – which is where this thread started.
Last edited:
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
There's no way I have time to respond to all that now mate.im in my phone and catching a flight to UK early in the morning but will get back to you when I can.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Good post, S47.
And to elaborate on the idea of "choosing" to be part of a social class - this sounds a lot like the idea that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" rather than an inherent facet of someone's psychological makeup. Similarly, religion: in theory one can choose to practice almost any religion, or no religion at all, but in practice the great majority of believers follow the religion they were brought up in, in which they have no more choice than they do in their sex or skin colour.
And to elaborate on the idea of "choosing" to be part of a social class - this sounds a lot like the idea that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" rather than an inherent facet of someone's psychological makeup. Similarly, religion: in theory one can choose to practice almost any religion, or no religion at all, but in practice the great majority of believers follow the religion they were brought up in, in which they have no more choice than they do in their sex or skin colour.
Last edited:
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
In my absence, can people please stop misrepresenting me. I did not say that I'm against gay marriage or that being gay is a lifestyle choice. It's dishonest and quite frankly it's fucking annoying.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Misrepresenting you? Then why did you type "but you can't just 'choose' to be part of a social class"? That implies transgender people choose - at some level - to be transgendered. Why would anyone choose this? because it's cool, and fun? because trans people famously have an easy time of it, and society gives them loads of breaks?
Fair enough if you can't reply right now, so I'm going to leave it at that until you get back. By all means please ignore us and enjoy your trip, anyway.
Fair enough if you can't reply right now, so I'm going to leave it at that until you get back. By all means please ignore us and enjoy your trip, anyway.
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
Just quickly, I meant you can't just choose to be a female (meaning the feminist idea that women are an oppressed social class), not transgendered - I'm not denying that people don't genuinely experience gender dysphoria. I don't think people choose to be gay or choose whatever sexual preferences they have. You can't choose to be working class or upper class or be black or to be a cat etc...these are all things that are due to circumstances, not personal choice.
Time to go to bed. Goodnight all
Time to go to bed. Goodnight all
Last edited:
john eden
male pale and stale
(apologies for probably not using the best words below, corrections welcome)
Two people who were born as biological men I know quite well have come out as trans / cross dressers over the last couple of years and I think this is something we are going to see a lot more of. So this isn't going away.
At the other end of the spectrum I have a friend who is fairly elderly who is a longstanding feminist (greenham common, lesbian activism etc). She's not exactly transphobic (certainly not aggressively) but I think separatism and female only spaces were a big part of her political and personal evolution. For her it's something she can't really get her head around and I've not pushed it too much but do remember her saying "but they behave like men" one time, which I took to mean that the trans activists she had encountered are domineering and aggressive.
For me this highlights why all this is so painful.
Most people agree that gender in theory can be non-binary. But the lived experience for most people is that it is actually exactly that - binary.
The lived experience of being a woman is overshadowed by being oppressed by men, with explicit or implicit violence.
The lived experience of being born into a man's body but not being comfortable with that (or with the roles that society imposes on Being A Man) is also one of being oppressed by men - with explicit violence in many cases if you do transgress the boundaries of what Being A Man entails.
I think that people need to recognise the real traumas that are at the heart of this conflict.
It is understandable that some women are suspicious of men generally. It's not too hard to understand why some women would treat people who were biologically men but now wish to identify as women with suspicion.
It is also understandable that trans people feel that they are getting shit from everyone. They are - and I don't think cis people can underestimate their lived experience of daily threats of violence and actual violence.
I think the only way this can actually resolve itself is if gender roles become even more fluid and we destroy patriarchy once and for all. Trans people are the vanguard of this.
Two people who were born as biological men I know quite well have come out as trans / cross dressers over the last couple of years and I think this is something we are going to see a lot more of. So this isn't going away.
At the other end of the spectrum I have a friend who is fairly elderly who is a longstanding feminist (greenham common, lesbian activism etc). She's not exactly transphobic (certainly not aggressively) but I think separatism and female only spaces were a big part of her political and personal evolution. For her it's something she can't really get her head around and I've not pushed it too much but do remember her saying "but they behave like men" one time, which I took to mean that the trans activists she had encountered are domineering and aggressive.
For me this highlights why all this is so painful.
Most people agree that gender in theory can be non-binary. But the lived experience for most people is that it is actually exactly that - binary.
The lived experience of being a woman is overshadowed by being oppressed by men, with explicit or implicit violence.
The lived experience of being born into a man's body but not being comfortable with that (or with the roles that society imposes on Being A Man) is also one of being oppressed by men - with explicit violence in many cases if you do transgress the boundaries of what Being A Man entails.
I think that people need to recognise the real traumas that are at the heart of this conflict.
It is understandable that some women are suspicious of men generally. It's not too hard to understand why some women would treat people who were biologically men but now wish to identify as women with suspicion.
It is also understandable that trans people feel that they are getting shit from everyone. They are - and I don't think cis people can underestimate their lived experience of daily threats of violence and actual violence.
I think the only way this can actually resolve itself is if gender roles become even more fluid and we destroy patriarchy once and for all. Trans people are the vanguard of this.
Last edited:
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
I think that's an admirably clear way of stating the issues, and that prioritising lived experience - and especially lived experience of violence, in all its forms - is really important, because that can get lost in discussion. Stemming violence against all parties (and in doing so supporting each person's right to live however the hell they want) must be the #1 aim, ahead of any theoretical discussion.
But - I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that trans people are necessarily part of the vanguard of destroying patriarchy. Is it not completely dependent upon how the trans person in question views their transition? If a person is transitioning from being a man to being a woman because of being uncomfortable with the societal restrictions associated with Being a Man, then while I support a person's right to transition absolutely, I don't see that this should be confused with an act to destroy patriarchy. Surely it rather just confirms that men should be like *this* and women should be like *this*, adapting to society rather than changing it? While I am 100% behind someone's choice to transition (any other position would seem very hypocritical, as we all change to various extents according to societal edicts), then this doesn't entail that transitioning should necessarily be seen as a revolutionary act in a societal context.
(Also worth mentioning other contexts than the UK, cos not sure that these have been mentioned so far - it's no secret that one of the highest rates of transition in the world is in Iran, due to the death penalty for being gay. I realise this is an extreme national case, but it's simply to point out that intentionality is important in determining to what extent transitioning is an act contributing to fluidity/destroying rigid gender norms, or adapting to them in situations ranging from the very extreme/perilous to the less extreme)
Request for info - one thing I have no idea about is to what extent most trans people expect to 'pass' for their chosen gender (let's say talking about people in the West in this case), and to what extent is it important (both pragmatically and conceptually) to trans people that they do pass? I realise there's a huge spectrum of possible responses here, and it is situation-specific as above, but the question seems an important one to ask, to those with more knowledge than I have.
But - I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that trans people are necessarily part of the vanguard of destroying patriarchy. Is it not completely dependent upon how the trans person in question views their transition? If a person is transitioning from being a man to being a woman because of being uncomfortable with the societal restrictions associated with Being a Man, then while I support a person's right to transition absolutely, I don't see that this should be confused with an act to destroy patriarchy. Surely it rather just confirms that men should be like *this* and women should be like *this*, adapting to society rather than changing it? While I am 100% behind someone's choice to transition (any other position would seem very hypocritical, as we all change to various extents according to societal edicts), then this doesn't entail that transitioning should necessarily be seen as a revolutionary act in a societal context.
(Also worth mentioning other contexts than the UK, cos not sure that these have been mentioned so far - it's no secret that one of the highest rates of transition in the world is in Iran, due to the death penalty for being gay. I realise this is an extreme national case, but it's simply to point out that intentionality is important in determining to what extent transitioning is an act contributing to fluidity/destroying rigid gender norms, or adapting to them in situations ranging from the very extreme/perilous to the less extreme)
Request for info - one thing I have no idea about is to what extent most trans people expect to 'pass' for their chosen gender (let's say talking about people in the West in this case), and to what extent is it important (both pragmatically and conceptually) to trans people that they do pass? I realise there's a huge spectrum of possible responses here, and it is situation-specific as above, but the question seems an important one to ask, to those with more knowledge than I have.
Last edited:
Benny Bunter
Well-known member
Now we're getting somewhere. Good posts, especially baboon
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Re sexuality and choice - I think it's very important not to conduct the debate on terms dictated by conservatives, whereby what is 'natural' or inherent' is the only thing worthy of being protected from discrimination and violence.
Sexuality is pretty clearly a combination of a whole plethora of influences (in my view childhood experience is critical, but that's a huge discussion), and one's sexual identity and choices, whether one identifies as 'gay', 'straight', 'bisexual' or any other of a rainbow of possibilities, are worthy of protection whether they are natural/inherent or not.
Also, to maintain that sexuality is 'inherent' in some way is to suggest that heterosexuality is inherently much more widely adhered to than any kind of sexuality, rather than this situation stemming from millennia of social control over people's sexualities.
Last edited:
john eden
male pale and stale
I should probably expand on what I meant by that. I get what you mean by intentionality but that is not where I was coming from. People will transition for all sorts of reasons.
What I mean by saying that they are the vanguard is that trans people confront fixed gender roles by their very presence. This is why they make people so uneasy and why so much violence is directed against them. I think in the short term that there is some reinforcing of the binary gender divide going on, but it is undeniable that trans people and the technologies and communities that have developed around them allow a multiplicity of gender statuses to evolve.
I think this has to happen alongside other things, of course, but for me trans people are at the sharp end of publicly, physically questioning the idea that you are born into a permanent fixed gender.
john eden
male pale and stale
Re: choice
Lots of gay people "choose" to live as heterosexuals, with varying levels of success and psychological damage.
Similarly we probably all know people who had a one off fling with someone of the same gender (mainly women in my case, tbf) who don't particularly see themselves as being gay? (Hence the category "men who have sex with men").
Lots of gay people "choose" to live as heterosexuals, with varying levels of success and psychological damage.
Similarly we probably all know people who had a one off fling with someone of the same gender (mainly women in my case, tbf) who don't particularly see themselves as being gay? (Hence the category "men who have sex with men").
I dont think thats what was meant above - more that sexuality is inherently a part of someone's identity and is not something that is chosen or changed on a whim.
And yes, hetrosexuality is more widely adhered to. Thats just biology.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Sure, I agree of course that the presence of trans people does very physically confront entrenched ideas about gender. Part of why I'm so interested in how people who transition/are going to transition see the issue of passing/not passing, and whether that is important, or whether the prospect of entirely new gender statuses is actively embraced (albeit with trepidation because of the high risk of violence to one's person)
john eden
male pale and stale
It's not "just" biology though is it? There are other factors, including the likelihood of being stoned to death for transgressing.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
In both those cases I see the massive influence of societal norms constraining how people might choose to define themselves sexually